In a significant order that clarifies the boundaries of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has declared that it does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding Floor Space Index (FSI) misuse or redevelopment irregularities. This ruling serves as a crucial precedent for homebuyers and developers in Mumbai, distinguishing clearly between matters meant for RERA and those destined for Civil Courts.
At LegalAssure, we believe in keeping you updated with the latest legal nuances to protect your property interests. Here is a breakdown of the recent ruling in the case of Sanjay P. Vohra v. Sanjona Builders.
The Case: Challenges to the 'Abhilash Phase II' Project
The dispute arose when a complainant, Mr. Sanjay P. Vohra, approached MahaRERA seeking the revocation of the registration of a project named Abhilash Phase II in Kurla, Mumbai Suburban. The allegations against the promoter, Sanjona Builders, were serious and included:
FSI Misuse: Accusations that the developer illegally sold fungible FSI belonging to the society.
Dual Registration: Allegations that two separate RERA registrations were taken for a single building.
Illegal Construction: Claims that construction was done over pocket terraces.
The Ruling: Why MahaRERA Dismissed the Complaint
MahaRERA Member Mahesh Pathak dismissed the complaint, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal was based on three critical legal grounds that every property buyer should be aware of:
Locus Standi (Right to Sue): The Authority found that the complainant was not an "allottee" as defined under the RERA Act. He failed to produce an allotment letter, agreement for sale, or proof of payment. Without being an allottee, one cannot claim protection under RERA.
Rehabilitation Component Exemption: The flat in question was part of a redevelopment project's rehabilitation component. Under Section 3(2)(c) of the RERA Act, real estate projects involving renovation or redevelopment where no new allotments are made (i.e., giving flats back to existing society members) are exempt from registration. Therefore, MahaRERA held that it has no authority over rehab flats.
Civil Disputes vs. RERA Disputes: The Authority explicitly stated that issues related to the sale or misuse of FSI and partnership disputes are civil in nature. These must be adjudicated by a Civil Court, not a regulatory body like MahaRERA.
"MahaRERA is of the view that it lacks jurisdiction under the RERA to adjudicate issues relating to the sale or misuse of FSI. Such grievances, if any, must be raised before the proper court of law." — MahaRERA Order
Key Takeaways for Homebuyers and Societies
Know Your Forum: If you have a grievance regarding the structure, FSI, or internal society disputes in a redevelopment project, the Civil Court is likely your correct venue, not RERA.
RERA protects 'Allottees': To file a complaint with MahaRERA, you must be a genuine allottee (buyer) of the sale component. Members receiving rehab flats in a redevelopment often fall outside this specific jurisdiction unless there is a breach of the sale component affecting them.
Document Everything: The case was partly dismissed because the complainant could not provide documentary evidence of being an allottee. Always ensure your allotment letters and agreements are in order.
Conclusion
This ruling reinforces that while MahaRERA is a powerful tool for consumer protection, it is not a "catch-all" court for every property dispute. Understanding the specific jurisdiction of legal forums can save you time and legal costs.
For expert legal advice on Property Disputes, RERA compliances, and Redevelopment agreements, contact the experts at LegalAssure today.
Reference: https://search.app/5iRZT